The former paper, with the distinctly positive spin, is published by the council itself. The latter, with a transparently negative angle, is published by Trinity Mirror.

I'm not going to deconstruct either version in order to say which was more right or wrong. Indeed, in factual terms, they are possibly both equally correct or, arguably, equally unreflective of the true state of affairs.

For instance, the council-run paper implies that the area's residents stand to benefit in the long term from the scheme. The independent, commercially-owned paper refers only to residents who oppose the short-term upheaval likely to be caused by redevelopment.

But those contrasting stories illustrate once again the clash between two forms of local newspaper that have very different business models, aims and audience volumes.

The paid-for Chronicle, with a weekly circulation of fewer than 1,500, views the News - a fortnightly distributed free to 75,000 households across the borough - as an interloper into its territory and blames it for making its already difficult job of serving the people even more difficult.

Chronicle editor Adrian Seal (whose real title, sadly, is "multi-media content manager") says: "The differing stories are a good example of the challenges we're facing. They only print the good news. We try to tell people what's really happening.

"We can't compete. They have more staff. They don't have to make a profit. We have no problems with a monthly council paper informing residents about its activities, but the News has expanded beyond that."

The News is edited by a former Chronicle employee, Geoff Cowart. His boss, the council's head of communications, Simon Jones, also once worked at executive level for Trinity Mirror.

Jones scoffs at the notion that the News is the cause of the Chronicle's problems, arguing that it has been losing sales for many years and has suffered from under-investment.

He rejects Seal's argument that if "the independent voice" of the Chronicle is wiped out - as looks highly likely - it will be a threat to democracy.

"What was bad for democracy," counters Jones, "is the fact that the local authority could not communicate with the people through the Chronicle because of its tiny sale and its negative agenda.

"Look at its regeneration story. There's not even a quote from the council. It lacks any sense of balance. The problem is that local papers are staffed too often by inexperienced people who don't meet anyone or know anyone they write about."

He concedes that the News attracts advertising that could well appear in the Chronicle but says: "We weren't the reason they began to lose advertising. They were suffering falling sales and declining advertising before the News was first published."

This is good knockabout stuff, of course. The logic of Jones's argument is hard to fault. But it's also undeniable that if there is no independent scrutiny of the council then there will be a democratic deficit.

I suspect the council's team of PR-journalists know that too, though they would not dare to say so in public and on the record. Even if they disdain the other side's current agenda, they know there is virtue in sceptical public service journalism.

So where do we go from here, given that the chances of the Chronicle surviving for more than, say, 18 months look pretty slim?

I'm bound to say that the independent voice - or voices - to hold local power to account in future look as if they will be raised entirely online. This is a matter to celebrate rather than lament.

Initially, start-up websites and blogs may well be negative too. There will be a wild west period. But sensible, moderate voices will surely emerge due to greater public participation.

Print journalists already make too much of the supposed anarchy on the net. I seem to recall from reading newspaper histories that similar hysteria greeted newspapers in the 17th century. Order will eventually arise, and maybe more swiftly than many critics believe.

Meanwhile, at this crossroads between one medium and another, I agree that it is an uncomfortable situation, most especially for editors like Seal (and his owner) who know they are managing decline.

They must admit, however, that forcing the closure of council papers - which, anyway, looks like a hopeless mission - will not stop the rot.

In researching this piece it was impossible not to notice that the Chronicle website is anything but state-of-the-art. If Trinity wants to regain the initiative from the council, and build an audience for the future, it should be devoting more of its resources to online investment.